Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. Tough—if their products are causing deaths, Erin would say, they should be regulated, regardless of whether there's opposition from the polluters.

Incorrect. Other diseases are out of scope. It would be valid to conclude that regulating PAHs could decrease deaths if there is a causal link between them and this subset of deadly illnesses.

Incorrect. Be careful here! Erin doesn't argue that the regulations are necessary to reduce deaths from diseases associated with PAHs, so other means of reducing such deaths are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
A: No one has proven that PAHs cause cancer, so there's no need to regulate them.

E: PAHs are also blamed for heart/lung disease deaths, so the regulations will save lives.

Answer Anticipation:
Always be sure to know what the question is asking! While Albert's argument isn't particularly strong (it has an absence of evidence flaw), the question stem wants us to come up with a counter to Erin's argument. So any flaw in Albert's argument is out of scope—we need to focus on Erin's argument.

Erin's argument is causal—it discusses the cause of illness and the effects of changing that cause. However, it doesn't have a correlation/causation flaw—the premise is causal (PAH are blamed for these deaths, implying they're a causal factor). So what is the flaw here? Well, Erin makes a prediction about the impact of legislation. We know it should decrease the amount of PAHs released through emissions, but Erin's premise is about PAHs overall. If auto emissions are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the overall amount of PAH released into the atmosphere, it might not have the effect she predicts. Let's find an answer discussing that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that regulations on emissions won't have the effect that Erin predicts. Since the PAHs are caused by wear and tear on tires, not by emissions, regulating the latter won't do much for diseases caused by PAH.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument reaches a causal conclusion based on causal premises, it doesn't necessarily feature a correlation/causation flaw. And when a cause is reduced, it's expected that the effect is reduced. However, when an argument relies on this connection in reaching its conclusion, be sure that the cause itself is addressed. Here, the regulations weren't going to regulate PAHs—they were going after auto emissions. Without knowing the effect of this on overall PAH levels, there's no justification for Erin's conclusion.

Incorrect. First, Erin's argument is about heart and lung disease, not cancer. Second, even if there are other carcinogens in auto emissions, reducing the levels of one of them could reduce overall cancer rates.